Kodak Technical Pan edge markings, bases & dates

RogerHyam · Oct 13, 2021

I've been fortunate to acquire some 35mm Tech Pan. It consists of:

Thirty 36 expo rolls that have been fridge stored and have an expiry date of 05/2005 (I'm guessing this is some of the last manufactured & distributed).
A bulk loader which by the weight is nearly full but was at the back of a cupboard and not fridge stored.

The film in the cassettes only has Kodak written on the edge which kind of surprised me.

The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then what looks like a batch number and is either heavily fogged or on a different base (I suspect the latter).

I'm wondering just how old the film in the bulk loader is. When did they change the base and markings on Tech Pan?

I've shot film on and off since the 1970s but never Tech Pan. Could anyone with more experience shed light on the differences here?

Shooting the first couple of test rolls has been fun. They looks like they might scan (with a camera and macro lens) well. Not sure about darkroom printing till Ilford relase grade -2 filters I'm going to experiment with POTA like devs next.

Quick phone snap. Bottom strip is still wet.

Nicholas Lindan · Oct 13, 2021

You don't mention the EI you used or the developer and developing time.

The top film strip looks like it was overdeveloped. Surprisingly, the frame numbers don't look overdeveloped.

The bulk load film on the bottom has been light fogged - someone opened up the bulk loader to see what was inside.

I shoot Tech Pan at EI 12 and reduce development to get reasonable contrast. I confess, though, that I only use Technidol. I have tried other suggestions with no luck: there is an image but the quality that Tech Pan is capable of just isn't there. In years hence I will still have lots of Tech Pan but the Technidol will have all gone. Photographers' Formulary sells a developer compounded for Tech Pan though I haven't tried it. POTA kinda, sorta, almost works.

'Scanning' with a digi-cam & macro lens may not work that well and you might be better off with T-Max100. But, different strokes for different folks.

If the development issue is resolved then the negatives will print beautifully with a #2 1/12 or #3 contrast filter. There will be lots of shadow detail, unlike the top film strip.

RogerHyam · Oct 13, 2021

Nicholas Lindan said:
You don't mention the EI you used or the developer and developing time.

I don't mention ISO and dev because it is entirely irrelevant to the question I was asking which was about the film base and age. The image is to show the markings. These are tests to see if the bag of film I was handed worked at all. Just FYI both were ISO 25. Top was DD-X 1+4 for 6 mins (because I was developing Delta 400 anyway) bottom is Ilfotec HC 1:29 5mins because I do a lot of films that way. Bottom was from a cassette that had been loaded from the bulk loader (at some point in the past) so I have yet to check if it was just that cassette or the bulk that is fogged.

It is pretty obvious from my comment that I know these are high contrast negs and I'm going to mess with development to reduce that. I even used a smiley face!!

What are the edge markings on your Tech Pan film and how old is it?

AgX · Oct 13, 2021

RogerHyam said:
The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then what looks like a batch number.

"2415" is no batch number but the numerical designation of this film. All non-consumer films had such numerical designation.

"415" designated the emulsion type and "2" the format, thus here 35mm.

Nicholas Lindan · Oct 13, 2021

RogerHyam said:
The image is to show the markings. ... What are the edge markings on your Tech Pan film and how old is it?

Sorry about that, didn't mean to be pedantic - I cued off your statement "I have ... never shot Tech Pan."

The film I have that is dated to expire in 2002 looks just like your top strip, same markings, zero fog. Tech Pan I shot in '83 is marked "Kodak Safety Film." Neither is marked with the film type.

Kodak bulk loaded film often has different markings on it. I have assumed it was because the film was spooled on different machinery.

I haven't yet had to dig into the bulk rolls sequestered in the back of my freezer so I don't know how they are marked. Funny that the edge marking on your film shows K'odak rather than Kodak, probably a typo when someone was setting up the edge printing machine.

Bulk rolls of Tech Pan hold 150ft rather than the usual 100ft because of the thinner mylar/Estar base

RogerHyam · Oct 14, 2021

Nicholas Lindan said:
Bulk rolls of Tech Pan hold 150ft rather than the usual 100ft because of the thinner mylar/Estar base

Wow - that is interesting. I may have a third more than I thought!

RogerHyam · Oct 14, 2021

AgX said:
"2415" is no batch number but the numerical designation of this film. All non-consumer films had such numerical designation.

"415" designated the emulsion type and "2" the format, thus here 35mm.

Yes that's why I said "then the batch number" i.e. 1841-002-04.

I think I can confidently say this batch wasn't made in 1841

AgX · Oct 14, 2021

RogerHyam said:
Yes that's why I said "then the batch number" i.e. 1841-002-04.

You wrote "The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then what looks like a batch number." Which made me think you consider this figure as batch number.
Should it not be instead "The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then something what looks like a batch number." ?
Or even better "followed by something"?

The non-native reader

(Who experiences more difficulty in understanding the wording employed in this forum, than the technical content...)

removed account4 · Oct 14, 2021

I can't help you with any of the questions you have asked but you might look into having more fun with that film than just shooting it at a sloooow speed. this film had a variable so it could be shot 200 and developed in print developer to give high contrast results with absolutely no grain. I've enlarged a small something as big as the 35mm sprocket hole to be 11x14 .. grainless, and fun! I don't know if you can get the "special" developer ( technatol? sorry not sure what it was called I never shot it at a slow iso ) kodak had made for this film. I think the formulary sells a kit-clone if you are interested, but not sure if they can send it overseas to your neck of the woods.

RogerHyam · Oct 14, 2021

AgX said:
You wrote "The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then what looks like a batch number." Which made me think you consider this figure as batch number.
Should it not be instead "The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 then something what looks like a batch number." ?
Or even better "followed by something"?

The non-native reader

(Who experiences more difficulty in understanding the wording employed in this forum, than the technical content...)

Thank you for putting up with all the sloppy English speakers. At work I really admire the language skills of my German colleagues. When I have tried to learn German it has been a disaster!

I think the clearest English version would have been "The film in the bulk loader has TP 2415 followed by what looks like a batch number." In German "dann" has nearer to cause and effect or temporal meaning whilst in English "then" appears to be used ambiguously to also meaning ordering. In German nächste would be used perhaps? This might explain confusion I have caused in other situations! Anyhow this isn't photography

AgX · Oct 14, 2021

In German "dann" is used both for depicting a time sequence and for ordering. Now as you indicated what you meant , your "then" makes sense, but I just did not think of a second number being there, but considered your "then" as sloppy English.

Maybe too often when not understanding an english wording here at once for sure I tend to consider it as colloquialism, instead of giving it a second thought, of what might be behind it otherwise.

J N · Nov 9, 2023

Resurrecting another old thread:

I think I just found a 30 year old roll of Tech Pan in an old Watson loader! If so it's my own roll that I've been wondering the whereabouts of for ... 30 years.

I thought the loader had Tri-X in it but after my usual Diafine souping of a test roll, I thought at first it was just fogged and undeveloped, but when the film dried I could make out, just barely, some test images shot at 100, 200, 400, 800 EI today. With great effort I made out EASTMAN [lots of space and some squares and a delta] SAFETY FILM on the edge. So I believe this is the stuff. It does seem to be on ESTAR or something similar.

I have no idea about the fogging, whether fogged by temperature or light (it has certainly been stored poorly), how much fogging and where in the roll, etc., but I'm prepared to use this stuff in its "degraded" state for that "vintage" film look, regardless. It looks like there may also be some interesting small defects near the sprocket holes.

I believe I have some HC-110 somewhere so I guess we'll try that out tomorrow at 8, 12, 25 etc EI.

I didn't shoot much of this so there's probably at least 100' left (2415 came in 150' rolls due to its thinner base).

oxcanary · Nov 10, 2023

I used to use this way back rated at ISO 25 and developed in Rodinal highly diluted 1+300 for 12 to 13 minutes. Nice printable negatives.

Romanko · Nov 10, 2023

Nicholas Lindan said:
Funny that the edge marking on your film shows K'odak rather than Kodak

These are the "plant of origin dots":

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Guide-to-Identifying-Year-of-Manufacture-for-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films.pdf

This particular roll was manufactured in Rochester. The Kodak document applies to motion picture films so it would be of no help in identifying the year of production of this Technical Pan.

MarkS · Nov 10, 2023

Just a note: the first digit of a Kodak 4-digit indentity code often refers to the thickness of the film base. For example "2xxx" is on a thin base, "4xxx" a thicker base, "6xxx" thickest of all.
I'm sure that there are many exceptions, as EK offered over 300 different films at their peak, but that's the basic knowledge. Bob Shanebrook's "Making Kodak Film" likely has the definitive answer.
I have never seen TP in 35mm labeled other than 2415... the 120 version was 6415.

Romanko · Nov 11, 2023

MarkS said:
Bob Shanebrook's "Making Kodak Film" likely has the definitive answer.

Unfortunately, not. It only mentions that TP 2415 was introduced in 1980 and TP 6415 (type 120) and 4415 (sheet film) were produced between 1984 and 2004.

Romanko · Nov 11, 2023

Not sure if this helps, but here is the box from my 70mm roll of Technical Pan dated 08/1998

BMbikerider · Nov 11, 2023

oxcanary said:
I used to use this way back rated at ISO 25 and developed in Rodinal highly diluted 1+300 for 12 to 13 minutes. Nice printable negatives.

That was something that I would have also suggested but the last time I used it was about 25 years ago I chose to use ID11 diluted 1-1 but exposed at 12 ISO with the development shortened to kill a lot of the extreme contrasts that this film is capable of. I cannot remember what the times may have been but a bit of experimentation would help out. You have enough film to do a lot of experimenting with!

MarkS · Nov 11, 2023

The last time I tried TP for "normal contrast" I used the Formulary developer meant for Tech Pan and got good results. That was a long time ago- I decided that I didn't like the "glassy" look- but I believe that developer is still available.
Turning any high-contrast film into a continuous-tone one is a difficult task at best. Yet it can be done, and the results may well suit you (if not me).

laser · Nov 11, 2023

I haven't read all the postings but I can tell you the Technical Pan in 35mm with was available in 36-exposure rolls and 150-feet bulk rolls. the support is 4-mil Estar. 2xxx means it is 4-mil Estar. The edge print for 35mm and bulk rolls is different because the applications are different and they are spooled on different equipment. POTA (15 minutes at 68F is common) is a good choice for a developer. TP is very sensitive to development agitation. The agitiation must be vigorous and random to prevent patterns in the developed image. I was involved in the design of Technidol powder and Technidol Liquid Developers as well as TP 120-size and TP sheet film. BTW: All Kodak Films have a 4-digit film code number. The first and sometimes the first two digits indicate the support and the last 2 or 3 numbers indicates the emulsion. Occasionally the first number indicates it is an experiment that will not be sold. www.makingKODAKfilm.com

MattKing · Nov 11, 2023

laser said:
I haven't read all the postings but I can tell you the Technical Pan in 35mm with was available in 36-exposure rolls and 150-feet bulk rolls. the support is 4-mil Estar. 2xxx means it is 4-mil Estar. The edge print for 35mm and bulk rolls is different because the applications are different and they are spooled on different equipment. POTA (15 minutes at 68F is common) is a good choice for a developer. TP is very sensitive to development agitation. The agitiation must be vigorous and random to prevent patterns in the developed image. I was involved in the design of Technidol powder and Technidol Liquid Developers as well as TP 120-size and TP sheet film. BTW: All Kodak Films have a 4-digit film code number. The first and sometimes the first two digits indicate the support and the last 2 or 3 numbers indicates the emulsion. Occasionally the first number indicates it is an experiment that will not be sold.:

laser said:
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Bob, et al
I was given and therefore have on hand the following unused and not particularly carefully stored items:
1) 1 roll of 120 Tech pan;
2) 1 packet of Techidol powder; and
3) 1 vial of Technidol liquid developer.
My assumption is that there is a marginally better chance that the powder developer will work better than the liquid developer.
Does my assumption make sense?

Craig · Mar 17, 2024

MattKing said:
Bob, et al
I was given and therefore have on hand the following unused and not particularly carefully stored items:
1) 1 roll of 120 Tech pan;
2) 1 packet of Techidol powder; and
3) 1 vial of Technidol liquid developer.
My assumption is that there is a marginally better chance that the powder developer will work better than the liquid developer.
Does my assumption make sense?

Came across this and saw you didn't have an answer. Bob told me that Technidol liquid was designed to have a 3 year shelf life. So it's probably no good anymore.

However, I have a typewriten Kodak paper on Technical Pan from 1980, and it gives a developer formula for POTA. I'm presuming this is pre-Technidol, as I find it interesting that they note that Phenidone is a trademark of Ilford, and is available where Ilford chemistry is sold.

1.5g Phenidone
30.0 g Sodium sulfite
water to make 1L

Develop for 15 min @20°C, providing 5sec agitation every 30 sec.

They recommend trying film speed at either 25 or 50.

MattKing · Mar 17, 2024

Thanks Craig.

Nicholas Lindan · Mar 17, 2024

Craig said:
Bob told me that Technidol liquid was designed to have a 3 year shelf life. So it's probably no good anymore.

I've used old - 10, 15 (?) years - Technidol in the foil packets with no problems. Technidol in vials may go off sooner. YMMV and all that.

Kodak Technical Pan edge markings, bases & dates

RogerHyam

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

RogerHyam

AgX

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

RogerHyam

RogerHyam

AgX

removed account4

RogerHyam

AgX

J N

oxcanary

Romanko

MarkS

Romanko

Romanko

BMbikerider

MarkS

laser

Advertiser

MattKing

Moderator

Craig

MattKing

Moderator

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Kodak Technical Pan edge markings, bases & dates

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency